About your Search

20130423
20130423
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
with the obama administration's decision to rule out the combatant status for the suspect at this time. i believe such a decision is premature. it is impossible for us to gather the evidence in just a few days to determine whether or not this individual should be held for questioning under the law of war. the decision by the administration to try this individual in federal court is a sound decision. it is the right decision. military commission trials are not available in cases like this. i wrote the 2009 military commission act. i have been a judge advocate for over 30 years, along with the help of many colleagues. we created a system for foreign terrorists. we purposely excluded american citizens. i have all the confidence in the world in article 3 courts at the federal level. they do a terrific job. i have confidence in our military commissions system. the decision by the administration not to proceed in state court in massachusetts i think was the correct decision. the death penalty will be available at the federal level. this is clearly in my view a candidate for a case to be deemed an act o
should be tried as an enemy combatant in the military tribunal. but i think the obama administration was arguing very reasonably this was basically a u.s. citizen. tsarnaev had recently been naturalized, who committed allegedly, these acts on u.s. soil. so it was pretty straightforward. and you know, what's been left out of the conversation, i think is just how troubled the military tribunal system has become. it has really become difficult. a lot of tainted evidence, a lot of questions about whether, in any way, you can reconcile the procedures of these military tribunals with the constitution. that's something the administration didn't want to get into particularly given as carney pointed out you've had hundreds of terrorists prosecuted in u.s. courts and quite successfully. >> bill: in fact, senator dianne feinstein and yesterday jay carney made the same point that it would be -- it is unconstitutional to try an american citizen as an enemy combatant, right? an american citizen has certain rights under the constitution which we just can't ignore. >> yeah, i mean you know, there ar
in america's newsroom. martha: several republican lawmakers are now questioning the obama administration's decision not to treat the boston bombing suspect dzhokhar tsarnaev as an enemy combatant. he will face a civilian trial in criminal court. civilian complaint is revealing details from the carjacking to the shootout in police. listen to this from the documents released yesterday. the man point ad firearm at the victim, the person who was carjacked, did you hear about the boston explosion? and i did that. the man removed the magazine from his gun and showed the vipg tim it had a bullet in it and reinstated the magazine and stated, i am serious. new york city mayor, rudy giuliani helped lead the nation out of 9/11 terror attacks and we i will be remembered for that going forward and rely on you for your expertise how you break down these things. a lot of people bush for enemy combatant status. the white house doesn't want to go there. is that a wise decision on their part. >> i don't think so. martha: why? >> the white house is a in state of denial and has been that way since major has
. can an american citizen be considered and enemy combatant? absolutely. it goes back to the civil war war ii.orld killed t barack obama one in the wilds of yemen. if you affiliate yourself with and go to war against american citizens and willfully on behalf of a movement or an enemy then you can be considered an enemy combatant. if in world war ii you went to you are noti forces an enemy combatant? of course you are. host: hina shamsi. it is true u.s. citizens can take up arms against the united states and then they what is called understood belligerents.r the problem here that we are extending and s expanding the laws of war far beyond what is constitutionally permitted under the laws themselves. charles was exactly right. what the suspect is accused of terrorism. if we think of what timothy was done in --at mcveigh did or what was done in bombing, we ark idn't treat those tragedies as acts of war. we appropriately treated them as had to be ts that investigated, prosecuted and appropriately punished. we had an american citizen who was killed on the orders of president obama. commit a
. markey. the obama administration has chosen to prosecute the surviving suspect in the bombings in the federal court system. instead of before a military tribunal as an enemy combatant were where they have fewer constitutional protections. did they do the right thing? 90 seconds, sir. >> yeah, i believe that president obama and his justice department are completely committed to ensuring that case. is done in this we all heard president obama last week. he said there is a part of boston in him. he said that justice would be done in this case. if in the opinion of president obama and his justice department, the proper place for prosecution is here in the federal district court system of the state of massachusetts, i believe that the court system here in massachusetts can provide that kind of a venue in order to hear this case. so i defer to president obama. i defer to his justice department if in their judgment this is the proper place in order to conduct that trial. >> thank you, sir. mr. lynch, 90 seconds. >> john, i think that we do have sufficient laws in our iminal system to
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5